SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') which was decreed on 29.6.1988. The suit was decreed ex-parte against the Gaon Sabha. The District Government Counsel, Bulandshahr filed a restoration application in the case under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.P.C.') on 26.8.1988 praying that the decree dated 29.6.1988 be recalled and the case be restored to its original number and fresh orders be passed after hearing the parties. While the restoration application was pending, the City Board, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, 'City Board') also filed an application dated 30.3.1989 for being impleaded as a defendant in the case on the ground that the disputed plots had vested in the City Board through a Notification dated 29.11.1982. The restoration application was rejected by the trial court. However, it appears that no orders had been passed on the impleadment application filed by the City Board. Consequently, the City Board filed a revision against the decree dated 29.6.1988 and the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Commissioner') submitted a Reference dated 14.9.1990 before the Board of Revenue recommending that the decree dated 29.6.1988 be set aside. On the order dated 14.9.1990 Reference No. 6 of 90-91 was registered before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue') and the said Reference was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 27.2.1972. The City Board filed a review application registering Review No. 143 of 91-92/Bulandshahr which has been allowed vide order dated 4.2.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. praying for recall/review of the order dated 4.2.1993 and on the said application Review Petition No. 121//92-93/Bulandshahr was registered before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 3.1.1994 dismissed the Review Petition No. 121//92- 93/Bulandshahr. The orders dated 4.2.1993 and 3.1.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) A reading of the order dated 14.9.1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition, shows that through his aforesaid order, the Additional Commissioner had recommended that it would have been appropriate that the City Board be impleaded as defendant in the case and be heard before passing any order as there was sufficient evidence before the concerned trial court to show that the City Board had a vested right in the disputed plots. However, the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 27.2.1992 rejected the Reference and dismissed the revision filed by the City Board on the ground that the City Board can not be impleaded as defendant as the suit had already been decreed. Through its order dated 4.2.1993, the Board of Revenue has reviewed the aforesaid order dated 27.2.1992 and has held that the City Board was an aggrieved party and the decree adversely affects the rights of the City Board, therefore, it would be appropriate that the City Board be impleaded as defendant in the case and be heard in the proceedings.;